Creation vs. Evolution

[MichaelCadry]

Big difference..... You did not make an argument. In fact you avoided the argument the archaeologist made and attacked him.
So...yes you were mocked and rightfully so.

Dear 6days,

Silent Hunter is 'special.' I've dealt with him before. I'm sure he knows where he can stick his Tapatalk!! He is such a treasure!! Will be back in a while. Just ignore him, 6days!

Much Love, From God And Me!!

Michael

 

[chair]

Your close relative may not have been very bright? Ask him or her for just one example of archaeology proving something in the Bible wrong..... They are unable.

No need to resort to calling people "not bright". Hard to say that about somebody who is working on their Master's degree from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem right now. And who works as an archaeologist.

You don't need an archaeologist to "find" examples of mismatch between the Biblical account and facts on the ground. Jericho is a famous example. The city was destroyed before the Israelites showed up.

That is just one example. There are other well-known difficulties with the Biblical text. How many people left Egypt in the Exodus? The Bible says 600,000 men of fighting age. This implies a total population of several millions. That is a huge number of people for that period. We can estimate how many people lived in Canaan at the time, from the ruins. The oountry simily could not support so many people.

There are things that archaeology has proven. My favorite example is that of the altar on Mount Ebal, tough there is controversy regarding that as well.

The Bible in inconsistent. Who killed Goliath?- depends what chapter you read. Where did David take Goliaths head after the battle? Jerusalem- but it hadn't been conquered yet.` How did Saul first meet David? David the warrior who played the harp for him, or David the shepherd with no battle experience who went on to defeat Goliath?

Read the Bible. Pay attention to the details. You will learn something.

 

[gcthomas]

Good question... And there are answers. (For ex. Many scholars did not believe the account).
But that is apart from the fact that archaeology continues to confirm the accuracy of God's Word. And, it's apart from the fact you blindly believed atheist info telling you the location was not in scripture.



The former director of the Australian Inst. of Archaeology said "I know of no finding in archaeology that’s properly confirmed which is in opposition to the Scriptures. The Bible is the most accurate history textbook the world has ever seen.” Dr. Clifford Wilson

You know, of course, that the Australian Inst of Archaeology is a bible studies organisation?

From their website:

The Institute was established with a conservative tradition illustrated by such people as William Ramsay and Flinders Petrie. It aims to draw upon all means of study, geographical, epigraphical, geological, ethnographical and archaeological, to encourage an informed understanding of the biblical story,

 

[Rosenritter]

The Bible in inconsistent. Who killed Goliath?- depends what chapter you read. Where did David take Goliaths head after the battle? Jerusalem- but it hadn't been conquered yet.` How did Saul first meet David? David the warrior who played the harp for him, or David the shepherd with no battle experience who went on to defeat Goliath?

Read the Bible. Pay attention to the details. You will learn something.

Regardless of what chapter I read, David slew Goliath.

1 Samuel 17:50 KJV
(50) So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David.

What does your King James say? It's a classic translation that provides reliable translation of the Hebrew. I suppose that if you look hard enough you might find a different bible that says something different. Incidentally, if you are judging population as being limited by the ruins found in cities, doesn't that presuppose that all of the people would have been living in buildings that would have left behind ruins? Doesn't it describe Israel as being somewhat mobile and large portions of the population being rural? Figured that things made from cloth or animal hide might not leave the types of ruins that would stick around for a couple thousand years. Just paying attention to the details.

 

[Rosenritter]

.... after all that debate about whether "conservation of angular momentum" was a legitimate scientific principle, never did hear anyone offer their explanation of why planets and moons would be spinning or orbiting in opposite directions.

... never did hear any reaction as to the soft tissue in dinosaur remains. Or why it would carbon-date in the 22,000 year range. Or any indignation as to why a lab should reject further carbon-dating because they didn't that the results were going to be reported.

But worn out by the monkey cage. Don't expect to see any scientific evidence proof of evolution here but I'll keep my eyes open.

 

[chair]

Regardless of what chapter I read, David slew Goliath.

1 Samuel 17:50 KJV
(50) So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David.

What does your King James say? It's a classic translation that provides reliable translation of the Hebrew. I suppose that if you look hard enough you might find a different bible that says something different. Incidentally, if you are judging population as being limited by the ruins found in cities, doesn't that presuppose that all of the people would have been living in buildings that would have left behind ruins? Doesn't it describe Israel as being somewhat mobile and large portions of the population being rural? Figured that things made from cloth or animal hide might not leave the types of ruins that would stick around for a couple thousand years. Just paying attention to the details.

Thsi is not connected to translations. I use the Hebrew (KJV is not "mine"- I only use it because most here don't know Hebrew).
Read II Samuel 21:19. Then let's talk about Goliath.

Archaeologists are aware of the rural population as well. There are remains from some of these- there have been surveys done (mostly by Adam Zertal's group). There weren't such large populations in Canaan at that time. Not by a long shot. Really.

 

[MichaelCadry]

No need to resort to calling people "not bright". Hard to say that about somebody who is working on their Master's degree from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem right now. And who works as an archaeologist.

You don't need an archaeologist to "find" examples of mismatch between the Biblical account and facts on the ground. Jericho is a famous example. The city was destroyed before the Israelites showed up.

That is just one example. There are other well-known difficulties with the Biblical text. How many people left Egypt in the Exodus? The Bible says 600,000 men of fighting age. This implies a total population of several millions. That is a huge number of people for that period. We can estimate how many people lived in Canaan at the time, from the ruins. The oountry simily could not support so many people.

There are things that archaeology has proven. My favorite example is that of the altar on Mount Ebal, tough there is controversy regarding that as well.

The Bible in inconsistent. Who killed Goliath?- depends what chapter you read. Where did David take Goliaths head after the battle? Jerusalem- but it hadn't been conquered yet.` How did Saul first meet David? David the warrior who played the harp for him, or David the shepherd with no battle experience who went on to defeat Goliath?

Read the Bible. Pay attention to the details. You will learn something.

Dear chair,

I don't believe for a minute that Jericho was destroyed before the Israelites got there. Have to look over things a bit more carefully. As far as David and Saul goes, I'd have to research the scriptures again before answering. My belief is that David sang for Saul before going out with the Israelite army and slaying Goliath.

God Be With You,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

It might be an idea to actually learn something about the scientific field you are attacking. You don't know what the theory of evolution claims, and as a result your comments are, well, silly. Very silly.

Dear chair,

Who brought you out? You've posted 1,300 times since 2006?? Why does this site seem to draw out the chatty ones. No chair, I don't think that I am silly, very silly. I already know all I need to about the theory of evolution. Are you trying to tell me that they changed as a group?? I say God created man and woman. Not you, who says they evolved. Therefore, I know you are not as skilled as you think you are. I'm not even going to bother. Every time a DavisBJ leaves, another one of him pops up on this Thread. First Silent Hunter and now you. Isn't life a compromise.

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

I'm guessing he's reached the end of his list of nonsense and is about to start all over again, again.It's sad, really, really sad.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

Dear Silent Hunter,

You know what is really sad, REALLY SAD?? Your future {your eternal life}! Oh, how you are going to pay. It's a shame! You reap what you sow, I guess!!

Michael

 

[chair]

Dear chair,

Who brought you out? You've posted 1,300 times since 2006?? Why does this site seem to draw out the chatty ones. No chair, I don't think that I am silly, very silly. I already know all I need to about the theory of evolution. Are you trying to tell me that they changed as a group?? I say God created man and woman. Not you, who says they evolved. Therefore, I know you are not as skilled as you think you are. I'm not even going to bother. Every time a DavisBJ leaves, another one of him pops up on this Thread. First Silent Hunter and now you. Isn't life a compromise.

Michael

Nobody, and I mean Nobody, who understands that the Theory of Evolution is correct thinks that any particular creatures or group of creatures suddenly changed into something else.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Nobody, and I mean Nobody, who understands that the Theory of Evolution is correct thinks that any particular creatures or group of creatures suddenly changed into something else.

Dear chair,

I don't say that the Theory of Evolution IS correct. So whatever. If you are a Jew, why don't you hold the Torah as Truth?

Michael

 

[gcthomas]

.... after all that debate about whether "conservation of angular momentum" was a legitimate scientific principle, never did hear anyone offer their explanation of why planets and moons would be spinning or orbiting in opposite directions.

… because it is trivial to find out for yourself if you have an internet connection and a preferred search engine. Look it up, then ask for clarifications here if you either don't understand or don't believe the answers.

... never did hear any reaction as to the soft tissue in dinosaur remains. Or why it would carbon-date in the 22,000 year range. Or any indignation as to why a lab should reject further carbon-dating because they didn't that the results were going to be reported.

… because it has been hashed over ad nauseum already. Again and again the science answers were provided and ignored, with regular claims following that no-one has answered. Did you have anything specific to offer?

But worn out by the monkey cage. Don't expect to see any scientific evidence proof of evolution here but I'll keep my eyes open.

Proof is for whisky, mathematics and bible thumpers. Not for science.

 

[chair]

Dear chair,

I don't say that the Theory of Evolution IS correct. So whatever. If you are a Jew, why don't you hold the Torah as Truth?

Michael

It simply isn't a history book, not a biology book. And it was never meant to be.

 

[6days]

It simply isn't a history book, not a biology book. And it was never meant to be.

The Torah is given as history.

 

[6days]

because it has been hashed over ad nauseum already. Again and again the science answers were provided and ignored, with regular claims following that no-one has answered.

Science has provided answers which are ignored... you are correct.

 

[6days]

That is just one example.

Hey Chair..... Will you stick with that one example? IOW, are you going to jump from one example to another as each is answered?
Remember...my challenge was "just one example of archaeology proving something in the Bible wrong....you are unable"

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes...it was.

So when he said "modern critics" he was talking about critics about 70-80 years ago. Nice.

There are thousands of finds consistent with the Biblical account and not even one proving the Bible wrong.

Again, based on what? All you've given so far is an almost century old quote from one Christian archaeologist.

Re how archaeology continues to prove the Bible accurate the Los Angeles Times reported about this archaeological find...“‘Scholars have said that there wasn’t a Pool of Siloam and that John was using a religious conceit’ to illustrate a point, said New Testament scholar James H. Charlesworth of the Princeton Theological Seminary.

Yep, I'm aware of that find. So once again your argument is that because the Bible mentions geographic locations that existed, that proves the Bible to be the scientifically valid.

And that leads back to the question you dodged. If I find recent quotes from archaeologists saying that archaeology doesn't support the Bible, will you find that compelling?

 

[chair]

Hey Chair..... Will you stick with that one example? IOW, are you going to jump from one example to another as each is answered?
Remember...my challenge was "just one example of archaeology proving something in the Bible wrong....you are unable"

I gave one example. Jericho. I haven't seen any meaningful response to that yet.

 

[6days]

because it has been hashed over ad nauseum already. Again and again the science answers were provided and ignored, with regular claims following that no-one has answered.

Science has provided answers showing how C14 dates are consistent with the Bible, which are ignored... you are correct.

 

[6days]

I gave one example. Jericho. I haven't seen any meaningful response to that yet.

I'm going to be away a couple hours ago, but I'm asking if that is your best answer? Can you admit that there is not a single archaeological find proving anything in the Bible wrong if there is an answer to your claim?